Plastic or metal, on 10/22 Ruger trigger guards and receivers?

[His lordship.]

I bought two Ruger 10/22's early in 2008 new in the box and there was a debate on whether they were making the receiver, barrel clamp, and trigger guard out of plastic.  I did the lip test on mine, that is, where metal will feel cold in normal room temperature when I put my lips on it, and plastic feels warm.  The components all felt cold to my lips, but slightly warmer than the barrel.  Has anyone found evidence that there really was plastic used for those components?

I noticed that the question on the materials seems to have died down since that time.

[fr3db3ar]

I just bought one a month ago....all those parts are plastic on mine.  But I don't mind that......it's a shooter and plastic doesn't rust. 

[mcwoodduck]

mine standard model is really old.  Bought it in 1986.
Back then the Reciever, barrel band, and trigger guard were all alumimium.
Unless they changed the trigger assembly then I do not see how they could make them out of plastic.
I can also see how powder coating the parts rather than annodizing would give the look of plastic.

[torpedoman]

Easy check remove the magazine , push the mag release if the hole is shiny it is an alum. trigger housing if it is dark it is a plastic one.

[His lordship.]

Torpedoman...thanks for the info, I never thought of doing that.  After I put in this posting I was looking at my black finished 10/22 and now that it has a few hundred rounds through it I could see a small area inside the receiver where the bolt has been rubbing the finish and it definitely is shiny and metallic.  With the method of removing the mag. and pushing the release, yep, all metal.

[gunblade]

Ruger almost got the 10/22 right with the magnum model...steel receiver with integral scope rings.   If they made one with the steel receiver, scope rings, deluxe style checkered stock with a shotgun style buttpad and sling swivel studs, and a 20" barrel with no sights...then we might be on to something. 

[Keith L]

For getting it wrong there are lots of happy owners out here.

[gunblade]

Agreed...no question they've always been a good .22 for the money, and I've owned three or four of them myself.  My first rifle was a 10/22 my Dad gave me for Christmas.  I just never liked the aluminum receiver and sure enough I had one of them strip out on me when I was mounting a scope, so I switched to a 77/22 for hunting and if I just want to roll tin cans I use a Marlin lever action.  I guess I don't miss having a .22 auto all that much.  The last 10/22 I owned was a magnum model...sold it off before I had a chance to do much with it, but I was glad to see that Ruger went to a steel receiver...they just never really took the design any further than that IMO.   All boils down to personal preference. 

[madcratebuilder]

Ruger almost got the 10/22 right with the magnum model...steel receiver with integral scope rings.   If they made one with the steel receiver, scope rings, deluxe style checkered stock with a shotgun style buttpad and sling swivel studs, and a 20" barrel with no sights...then we might be on to something. 

Sort of like this?



The 10/22 mag bolt handle fits the 10/22.  Still has the aluminum receiver.  I have not come up with a checkering pattern that I like on this thumb hole stock, still looking. 18 inch .920 barrel, straight leg trigger, the rest is modified Ruger parts.

[1sourdough]

 Speaking of the 10/22. I bought an as new no box wood 10/22 yesterday for $160 local FTF. Can't say I really need it but have been looking for one in mint condition. It's about 5 yrs old & looks new.